Skip to main content

Security report for altvia.com

Altvia · Finance · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

70/100

Risk levelMedium

0–100, higher is better. How it is calculated

Altvia is a mature, established company founded in 2003, specializing in SaaS fund management software tailored for private capital teams including fundraising, investor relations, and deal execution. The company positions itself as a leading private capital technology platform offering key services such as CRM, virtual data rooms, analytics, and AI-powered tools. The website is professionally designed with excellent content quality, clear navigation, and good mobile optimization, reflecting a strong digital maturity. Technically, the site runs on WordPress with a modern tech stack including jQuery, HubSpot, Google Tag Manager, and various analytics and marketing tools. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enabled and domain status protections, though improvements like enabling DNSSEC and adding security headers are recommended. Privacy compliance is basic with a visible cookie consent mechanism but lacks explicit privacy policy and terms of service links in the provided content. Overall, the website and domain registration data indicate a trustworthy and credible business presence in the finance sector.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 100 · Low
Checks completed
7of 7

NIS2 Art. 21(2)

  1. (a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
  2. (b) Incident handling: One indicator
  3. (c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
  4. (d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
  5. (e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
  6. (f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
  7. (g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
  8. (h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
  9. (i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
  10. (j) Multi-factor authentication and secured communications: Not visible from outside

This scan rated NIS2 with an earlier keyword method that is no longer shown; rescan for the per-article view. Risk management, continuity, supply chain, training, MFA, management oversight (Art. 20) and incident reporting (Art. 23) need internal evidence, and Guard cannot tell whether NIS2 applies to this organisation.

GDPR is indicative only, based on publicly visible signals: Articles 7, 12, 13 and 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive. Not a certification or legal assessment.

Priority findings

5 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Security headers

    Security headers are instructions your web server sends to every visitor’s browser. Missing ones leave visitors more exposed to attacks such as clickjacking and injected scripts.

    • High

      Missing Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • High

      Missing X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • High

      Missing Content-Security-Policy header

      Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

      What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application

      • ASVS V3.4.3
      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; form-action 'self'; base-uri 'self'; object-src 'none';…

  2. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching altvia.com

This scan found 22 issues across 6 checks. Monitoring re-runs those checks daily, emails you when something material changes and records each fix, so you can show progress.

Daily monitoring

Recommended

€25per month

  • TLS certificates and expiry
  • DNS records
  • SPF, DKIM and DMARC
  • Security headers
  • GDPR and NIS2 posture
  • Exposed services
  • Third-party trackers
  • Security score drift

Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.

Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

Full report

€39.90one-time

  • The complete analysis as a PDF you can cite
  • Email delivery with an unlock code
  • Lifetime access to this report

Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.

Results by check

Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.

How this score is calculated

The security score runs 0–100, higher is better. It is the plain average of the security checks that completed in this scan, each counted equally. A check that could not run is left out: it counts neither as a pass nor as a fail.

Counted in this score

SSL/TLS
52
Security headers
15
Email security
88
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
70

Not counted

  • NIS2 outside view: Re-weights evidence from the TLS, email, DNS, network and hygiene checks, so counting it would count that evidence twice. Shown on its own.
  • OffSeq Observations: An AI reading of the site, useful context but not reproducible evidence. Shown on its own.

Findings that cap the score at 49

Each of these is serious on its own, so while any is present the site cannot rate better than high risk, however good the other checks are.

  • The certificate is not trusted by browsers
  • The website is not served over HTTPS
  • A database, remote desktop, file-sharing or Telnet service is reachable from the internet
  • The page loads a script from a compromised source
  • The domain registration has expired
  • SPF authorises every server to send mail as the domain

Partial scans

When the site blocks Guard or most checks cannot run, the score covers only the checks that ran (usually DNS and email), is capped at 75 and is shown as partial, without a risk level.

Risk levels

  • Critical0–25
  • High26–49
  • Medium50–75
  • Low76–100

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Altvia operates in the finance sector, targeting private capital fund managers and related stakeholders. Its SaaS business model focuses on providing specialized software solutions that streamline fundraising, investor relations, and portfolio management workflows. The company leverages partnerships and integrations with marketing and analytics platforms to enhance customer engagement and data insights. The domain age and registration details support a stable market presence. The website content and structure suggest a focus on enterprise and medium-sized clients seeking comprehensive fund management technology. No direct competitors or parent/subsidiary relationships were identified in the provided data.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good security baseline with HTTPS enforced and domain status flags that prevent unauthorized domain transfer or deletion. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options indicates room for improvement. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the provided content. The lack of a published security policy or incident response contact reduces transparency in security governance. The cookie consent banner aligns with privacy best practices but GDPR compliance cannot be fully confirmed without a privacy policy. Overall, the security posture is solid but could be enhanced by adopting additional security controls and transparency measures.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to protect against DNS spoofing and improve DNS security.
  2. Implement and verify security headers including Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service accessible from the website footer or main navigation.
  4. Add a security policy page detailing incident response procedures and provide dedicated security contact channels (e.g., security@altvia.com).
  5. Consider publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Altvia
Description
Power your fund’s performance with Altvia. Discover purpose-built software for IR, fundraising, and deal execution. Book a demo today.
Key services
CRM, VDR and LP Portal, Analytics, AIMe AI platform
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Google Tag Manager, HubSpot, Hotjar, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Bing Ads, Google Fonts, Yoast SEO
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Squarespace Domains (Registrar), Google Cloud DNS (Name Servers)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Domain status includes clientDeleteProhibited and clientTransferProhibited
  • Cookie consent banner implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
HubSpot Analytics, Google Clarity, Hotjar, LinkedIn Insight, Google Analytics (via GTM)
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Bing Ads, Twitter Ads, Facebook Ads (via HubSpot pixel)
Tracking pixels
LinkedIn Insight Tag, Hotjar, Google Clarity, HubSpot Analytics, Clearbit
Marketing tools
HubSpot, 6sense
Transparency
good

Site quality

Design
excellent
User experience
excellent
Content relevance
excellent
Navigation
excellent
Professionalism
excellent
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well-structured.
  2. Strong focus on private capital fund management software.
  3. Comprehensive use of marketing and analytics tools.
  4. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented and visible.
  5. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found on the homepage content.
  6. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service links detected in the provided HTML snippet.
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  8. No visible security headers detected in the provided data.
  9. Domain WHOIS data indicates a legitimate and mature domain.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a modern and diverse technology stack including jQuery, HubSpot marketing and analytics tools, Google Tag Manager, Hotjar, and LinkedIn Insight Tag. The site uses Google Fonts and is hosted with DNS managed by Google Cloud DNS, with domain registration via Squarespace Domains. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and SEO practices implemented via Yoast SEO. The site includes multiple external scripts for analytics, marketing, and advertising, indicating a mature digital marketing strategy. Technical risks include the lack of DNSSEC and missing security headers, which could be addressed to reduce attack surface and improve security posture.
Standards and sources

Reference chips under each finding point to the standard, regulation or specification the finding relates to. They are taken from the official datasets below and mapped conservatively: a finding with no defensible link shows none. NIS2 and GDPR references mark where a finding is relevant evidence, not a compliance verdict. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 binds digital infrastructure and digital service providers; for other entities it is the most detailed public reading of the Article 21 measures. WCAG, EN 301 549, European Accessibility Act and Web Accessibility Directive references name the requirement an automated accessibility rule relates to; they are not a conformance verdict.

Retrieved 2026-10-25

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 74/100Medium28 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with altvia.com. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.

Overall rating
Select a rating
4000 characters remaining

We’ll email you to confirm your review and keep your details private.

Community rating

No published reviews yet. Be the first to review altvia.com.

Feedback on this report

Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.

Overall report quality
Select a rating
2000 characters remaining

We only use your feedback to improve Guard reports. Contact details are never shared.